Shadow Closet

Shadow Complex, Chair Entertainment’s XBLA-available, Unreal 3.0-powered, side-scrolling, 2.5D send up to Super Metroid’s and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night’s beloved exploratory action platforming is by all accounts a pretty good game. I just started it, so I’ll withhold judgment, but it does look great so far.

Problem? Shadow Complex takes place in the fictional universe of Empire, a novel by acclaimed sci-fi-ist Orson Scott Card. Card consulted on the game’s development and has been very supportive of the title. In addition to being an acclaimed sci-fi-ist, though, Orson Scott Card is an acclaimed misogynistic bigot who’s particularly outspoken in his opposition to gay rights. As such, some gamers are boycotting the title, unwilling to support the author’s outmoded views despite the fact that the game’s really good.

As a liberal guy I am a strong supporter of equal rights for all people, gay or straight, man or woman, regardless of tint or creed. Frankly I think a person should be free to marry a horse if they want to (and the horse is willing); in the eyes of the government a union between two individuals is a tax status, not a social or religious statement. At the risk of spouting what’s become one of the weakest methods of advocacy, I have gay friends. I don’t like seeing them slighted in the rights department. I certainly don’t like worrying about them, and worry I do, that they might be victims of some awful hate crime. And I don’t like Orson Scott Card’s writing, and when I bought the game I admit I’d forgotten he was involved. Still, I’d have bought Shadow Complex knowing all this, though I fully support those who’ve chosen to boycott it.

Reactionaries have an amusing attack on those who support gay rights, similar to the one Dick Cheney uses when anyone votes anti-war. One time at lunch, a bunch of my co-workers were declaring loudly that they didn’t want to see Brokeback Mountain, that they “wouldn’t” see it. It was fairly clear why.

“I thought it was great,” I said.

This older gent – in his sixties – looks at me and sneers, “Are you gay, then?”

See, in their eyes, supporting gay rights – or even being willing to see a movie with gay characters in it – makes you gay, like voting Democrat makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

“No,” I said. “I’m not gay. I’m just not a bigot.”

Conversation went downhill from there.

And so it could be argued that just as straight bigots may boycott a movie that features gay themes, straight or gay rights advocates can and should boycott a game like Shadow Complex, even though the game content has nothing to do with gay themes. What they’re really boycotting is Orson Scott Card.

This is a double-edged sword though, and I wonder if it’s wise. Like conservative Christians boycotting Harry Potter because the word “witch” is used; like conservative Christians dry-humping the Narnia movies because that Liam Neeson lion is an allegory for Christ; like conservative Christians opposing the cervical cancer vaccine because they’ve got it in their head that it will sluttify young girls. It’s… it’s lateral logic, suspect logic. It doesn’t make much sense, at least not to me.

Would it not be better to lobby for more games that feature openly gay characters presented in a positive way? Much like the effort to promote the use of black characters as something other than stereotypes or criminals? Orson Scott Card’s views on many subjects are pretty disgusting to me, but I’m not sure it’s right to punish Shadow Complex for them. I’d certainly never buy a game that included as a feature the opportunity to victimize people because they’re gay; I’d never buy a game from a company that openly asserted, in or out of its games, an anti-gay (or anti-minority, or anti-woman) agenda of any kind. I just don’t feel Shadow Complex is guilty of any of these things. Moreover, I’m not certain it’s fair to victimize a game because of one individual’s views – I’d still buy Borderlands, for example, even if I learned that one of the 100-odd programmers working on it was a member of the Nazi party.

A similar flap happened recently with Resident Evil 5; the game, of course, was set in Africa and featured a very White dude gunning down some very Black zombies in a very… old west sort of way. The addition of a cappuccino-colored female sidekick didn’t defuse the situation, and Capcom took a lot of heat. While I personally didn’t understand the claims that the game was maliciously racist (it takes place in Africa, after all, many black people live there), I certainly understood the perceived racism. Arguments that no one complained about Resi 4, in which a white dude guns down Spanish zombies, fell flat with me because there’s no long history of mistreatment there, whereas Africa and the “white world” both have centuries of conflict that was racially motivated. It’s apples and oranges.

Anyway, I admire the people who are loudly discussing Shadow Complex’s association with Orson Scott Card. Publisher Epic and developer Chair are almost certainly unthrilled with the direction discussion of their game has taken, but that’s the risk you take when you choose to associate your game with an inflammatory figure. I find it exciting that games are tackling these issues, and that gamers are discussing them – and, at times, voting with their wallets. It will be interesting to see how this latest drama plays out.

About the author

Tap-Repeatedly Overlord Steerpike is a games industry journalist and consultant. His earliest memories are of video games, and hopes his last memories will be of them as well. He’s a featured monthly columnist with the International Game Developers Association, and is internationally published in an assortment of dull e-Learning texts and less dull gaming publications. He also lectures on games at various universities.

12 Responses to Shadow Closet

The situation is even more complicated than all this. Because, while Card is the creator of the universe Shadow Complex takes place in, the actual game script was written by Peter david who is very openly gay-friendly. He argued (on NeoGAF forums, where the call for boycott was voiced first)that by boycotting the game you are actually boycotting HIM, who is supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriages, rather than Card who is member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, an organisation that, as you might guess is openly opposing same-sex marriage.

It’s really a complex issue all in all, more to do with the fluid state of ownership of the creative work in the today’s industry than with anything else. Is Card entitled to his ideological stance? I don’t share it but of course he is. Is David entitled to his? Sure he is. How do you communicate your support of one of them and opposition to the other through the medium of not/buying a game? CAN you do it at all?

I don’t have the answers to be honest. I stopped liking Card’s writing quite a long time ago, yet will not deny that I hold some of his works in high regard. I am also very much opposed to much of his political/ ideological/ spiritual beliefs (the guy is a mormon after all). Does Shadow Complex, as a cultural artefact (not as commodity!!!) communicate political/ ideological ideas that I cannot go along with?? I don’t know, I haven’t played it but I sincerely doubt it, knowing David’s mindset (David is one of my favourite contemporary comicbook writers). Yes, the extreme left are the bad guys in this game, but so what? The thing is, I don’t think that the game is the problem, as a cultural artefact. It’s the mans tandng behind the game, removed several steps. How far am I willing to go in order to express my ideological stance? Particularly knowing that I am not American, I don’t live in America and frankly, as gay rights go, I’ll be happy when gay people are not assaulted in the street in my country. Christian Nutt on gamasutra makes some valid points but the question is, where do you draw the line??? I am not sure I know.

I learned a long time ago that sometimes you have to separate the artist from their art. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Hollywood celebrities who advocate causes I don’t believe in. Tom Cruise went on a rant against psychology and medicinal treatments for mental illnesses as an example, I still enjoyed The Last Samurai. Though honestly it might have been a better movie with a different actor, but that is actually beside the point.

Purchasing and playing Shadow Complex is not in anyway directly supporting prejuidice against homosexuals, but it could well hurt a very talented development team that made a great product. As the above commenter stated, the writer for the game is Peter David, so you could argue either way. Are you a big believer in “traditional” marriage, buying this game supports Peter David! Don’t do it! Are you a big believer in gay rights? Uh oh! Orson Scott Card is involved and you’re giving him money!

The world is just not that simple. I’m sad to say the reality is that any number of well known personalities and even companies you do business with on a daily basis are probably involved in something you don’t approve of.

I think there is a huge distinction between playing Shadow Complex and making a check out to the National Organization for Marriage.

The boycott is misguided because it is most likely to hurt people who really didn’t do anything to deserve being punished. Card’s involvement is negligible and any strike against his compensation is probably not enough to even get his notice.

I agree, Jason O. What it boils down to, really, is that each consumer has a right to make their own decision, but hopefully they’ll do so in an informed way. Personally I think that boycotting Shadow Complex will only hurt Chair and Epic, companies that have no stated position on gay rights. Moreover, I don’t think that a boycott will hurt Orson Scott Card. That said, I don’t fault anyone who chooses to carry on with the boycott. After all, conservatives boycott things at the drop of a hat, things that have nothing to do with the supposed ideology they’re promoting. Liberals should feel free to do the same.

The thing I found most fascinating in the link Meho provided was actually the Whole Foods section. I shop at Whole Foods all the time; it’s right down the street, the salad bar is awesome, and the checkout girls are often outrageously hot in a vegan gothic hippie sort of way. I admit I’d have thought that it was a liberal company and would promote liberal ideas, but that was naive on my part. I’m not going to stop shopping there because I find the CEO opposes healthcare reform; after all, I’m kind of in love with the girl who runs Register 4. I’m pretty sure she’s liberal despite what her company overlords may be.

Lookie! This post and thread has, for some reason, convinced the Google ad system that a banner for Ann Coulter’s column belongs here. Ahhh, the mysteries of the internet.

“the checkout girls are often outrageously hot in a vegan gothic hippie sort of way”

Wait, is that even possible?? Isn’t this a contradictio in adjecto? Wouldn’t the universe kinda implode on itself if even a single gothic vegan hippie girl managed to somehow be sexually arousing to a man??? Argh????

Anyway, the thing about boycott is kinda silly, of course, since Card is so much removed from the game in question , but some of the arguing that Nutt does is worth thinking about: gaming IS political, not the least because it has become a huge industry.

Anyway, I better go play some Batman now if I am ever to write the goddamn review…

Regardless of political bent, I think most boycotts are silly and accomplish little. I also don’t know if conservatives are necessarily more likely to boycott. I’m not strongly attached to a political viewpoint, but it seems like both sides like to scream “boycott” the second a supposed offense takes place.

Although for this issue I’m a little more sensitive because we’ve watched game companies closing their doors in response to current economic conditions and I’d hate to see any real hit to sales trying to punish someone who stands to lose very little.

That’s what concerns me the most. In someone’s attempt to be righteously indignant they are hurting people who don’t deserve it.

Mike "Scout" Gust08/24/2009

Meho, hot gothic vegan hippie girls practically have a voting majority in my city, Portland Oregon. They arouse hapless males on a daily basis. I notice that they esp. love young guys with beards and glasses….

The thing is, I am not young (I am 38) and I am married to a woman who is vegetarian and perhaps slightly gothic but is most certainly not hippie. I guess two out of three isn’t bad after all…

Anyway, back to topic… I do think that boycott is actually a legitimate tactic in expressing yourself (even though mostly to yourself…). I mean it’s a kind of a moral statement. I myself don’t drink Coca Cola, haven’t stepped into a McDonald’s restaurant for twenty years, don’t eat meat and try to avoid buying goods made by multinational corporations whenever there’s an alternative. It’s debatable how effective it is in the final calculation (unless you go around forcing others to do the same which might be politically the right thing to do but often turns you into an obnoxious arsehole that noone wants to hang out with) and of course, there’s always the risk that someone will point out that you boycott stuff just as long as it’s convenient for you and that you don’t boycott some other stuff that would, following your political agenda, be also right to boycott… But, yeah, at least you make SOME kind of statement… The question here is, do you look like a fool even to yourself when the statement you’re making deals with a sodding XBLA game…

xtal08/26/2009

There are good and valid points in all of the comments here, and whether or not you think boycotting is effective, there is one definite truth to the situation: the fact that it is being discussed is great. Anything that puts gamers in a more serious light is a positive in my eyes.

I agree with Jason O, in that you must sometimes separate artist from art, especially in a project like this where hundreds or more people were involved with the making of a game.

I like the quick splash screen as you begin to play Assassin’s Creed. It states that the game was created by a “multicultural group with various religious beliefs,” etc. You have to remember that: you may be boycotting many, not just one. Though again, that is the choice of each individual. Simply, make informed decisions.

lakerz108/26/2009

I didn’t even know that Orson Scott Card was Mormon or against gays to be honest. I think I read one of his books a few years ago but honestly not that much into sci-fi books.

Anyways, politics is the sure fire hot button topic to really fire people up. One thing that (kinda) annoys me though is when people just throw around the words liberal and conservative without being more specific. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but not when it comes to social issues for the majority of topics. I agree with Steerpike that if a man/woman wants to marry a horse (and the horse shows somehow that it’s willing) then I am okay with that. But it does annoy me when some people hear me talk and make some snide comment that I’m just another “Bush lover”. As if! I’m a libertarian, but that’s besides the point. I actually laugh at people nowadays that still claim they loyally vote for the same party regardless of the current state of events. These days that just can’t cut the mustard anymore.

Off my soapbox now, I have no problem with groups of people organizing boycotts or other social movements to bring attention to a (supposed) wrong in their eyes. I’m the same way in the sense that I will vote with my wallet in the commercial sense. But I really shake my head at all the people out there who keep taking drastic action at certain things without first taking time out to truly analyze all angles of the issue. Whether the issue is healthcare or the US deficit or the gay right’s view of one guy loosely associated with a videogame, I just want all involved to chill out a tad bit and consider things from a “forest view” instead of a “tree view”.

What I’d like to see is some politically charged debate about the CONTENT of games not just the context around them. Sure, most games’ narrative content is barely good enough to be considered a story but I feel there are questions to be asked and positions to be taken even so. For instance, for me, not being American and generally being closer to the third world than most of you reading this, I found Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to be very rich in terms of content that could be picked apart and discussed…

Agreed, Meho, I think CoD4 was – and I suspect the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 will be – very deep choices for exploration of political themes in games. I also think that citizens of different nations would have very different and equally valid takes on them, on heroes and villains and how the stories are told.

The United States is, sadly, a very conservative place, with a lot of uneducated people who believe only what their television tells them. We are behind Western Europe in many social issues and will remain so for some time to come, despite the attempts of a liberal minority that cares very much about changing the country’s standing in the eyes of others.

When it comes to the political content of games, I’m certain we’ll see more and more commentary within them, not just about them. New art forms always foster new discussion, and the greatest thing about games is that often the political statements can be couched within extremely allegorical contexts, from space marines to zombie Nazis.

Like everyone else on this thread, I hope Shadow Complex doesn’t suffer because of its association with Card, because I don’t believe Chair shares his views. Similarly, I think there is a lot of thematic value in the game itself that could be discussed – i.e., the growing militance of the radical left and the radical right, and what it may lead to in the years to come…

Lex08/29/2009

An enjoyable debate.

Many of the most creative people are tortured or flawed characters, but unless their work either extolls something unacceptable to the audience/purchaser or the funds raised are used to promote something unacceptable, what’s the point of a boycott?

Whilst generalisations are inherently dangerous, they often contain truth, and I think Steerpike is right about attitudes in USA. In Europe there seems to be more opportunity to be to at least some extent socially integrated despite having weird/extreme views rather than being labelled/branded an outcast.